[alphasubzero949]

First off, I'm a noob in the Linux world. After converting my girlfriend to OS X (and subsequently her sister and fiancee), the Dell Inspiron 4100 she used to extensively use ended up collecting dust. Eventually she loved her lampshade iMac so much that she bought an iBook G4 as a portable...

Recently we had a discussion about what to do with the Dell since Windows ME was fubared and more than likely infected with spyware. I mentioned the possibility of Linux, but it turned her off since her sister's ex screwed up their old desktop PC with a Red Hat distro and left them trying to figure out how to tinker with the machine. Obviously, the sisters are simply casual switchers to OS X who don't want to ever see the system guts (you'd be surprised how freaked out they were at seeing a ls -al / output on their iMac when I showed them what is really on their machine).

I just want to get them off of Windows entirely so that they do not need to worry about the likes of viruses, spyware, adware, etc. and having to deal with them. Not to mention, breathing new life into that laptop.

I know that quite a number of users on here have switched to Ubuntu on their Macs. I'm thinking of talking the sisters into converting the Dell's OS to Ubuntu. What have your experiences been with Ubuntu as far as 'ease-of-use,' as I've heard that it is as close to a 'desktop Linux' as far as distros go?

[bluedog]

It is the most familiar feeling of distros for how it works compared to commercial OS's like Windows (each flavor) and the MacOS (each flavor).

The driver support for it is really quite good, and it automatically recognized network settings and the ability to add printers without any 'tinkering'. I was thoroughly impressed with it in my testing.

If you want them to have some 'windows compatibility' there are a few options for installing MS-Office from a product sold by codeweavers. Do a search and you'll find it, if you're so inclined.

[Thraxes]

It's Debian for beginners and is really as good as it gets in the ease of use department. I use it as a videorecorder on one of my boxes (record and view TV from a remote computer using a web-interface... really cool). Installation is very easy when you pick the standard install, all the most needed apps are already installed but without too much bloat. Programmes or packages can be installed and updated via CLI using apt-get (which fink also uses) or a GUI programme like "adept" (kinda like finkcommander). The Ubuntu forums are very active and the people there extremely helpfull. There are scripts in the Forum that will install some additional tools, audiocodecs and a few other bits and pieces to finalize a Ubuntu installation.

I'd say go for it.

[cgc]

I dual boot Tiger 10.4.4. and Ubunto 5.10 Ubuntu is very easy to set thought there are a few limitations on the PPC side (e.g. Java 1.5, Firefox 1.5, etc. aren't easily installed). Well worth it except Tiger 10.4.4. feels a lot faster...

[Tomchu]

Ubuntu is bloated. Hell, most modern Linux distros are bloated, and quite slow. If there is <=256 MB of RAM on that machine, it won't run too well.

I don't see how difficult it is to install Windows 2000/XP, Firefox, enable the firewall, and make their accounts non-privileged. That'll solve 99% of their problems.

[alphasubzero949]

You mean install Windows ME.

[kick52]

if you want to erase everything on your mac, buy ubuntu!

i installed it, and even though i told it to install on the slave, it wipes my master and slave and i lost everything.

[Arclite]

if you want to erase everything on your mac, buy ubuntu!

Buy? Either you're trolling, or you got taken.

[Caetano]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Ubuntu is bloated.

Come on now - don't be silly. Ubuntu comes in a single CD - less than 700MB. OS X comes on a DVD, with around 2.5GB if you don't install the extras.

Hell, most modern Linux distros are bloated, and quite slow. If there is <=256 MB of RAM on that machine, it won't run too well.

KDE 3.5 with Ubuntu (Kubuntu) feels and is much faster than even Panther - let alone WinXP. If you want archaic, 6 year old SP4 level OSs, install Win2000 but you won't be impressed.

I don't see how difficult it is to install Windows 2000/XP, Firefox, enable the firewall, and make their accounts non-privileged. That'll solve 99% of their problems.

And what if they want to install something? They need an admin account on Win2000/XP and it's not just a 'sudo' away either.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Caetano

Come on now - don't be silly. Ubuntu comes in a single CD - less than 700MB. OS X comes on a DVD, with around 2.5GB if you don't install the extras.

OS X comes with one media player. Ubuntu comes with what, 3-4? OS X comes with one browser. Again, Ubuntu comes with 2-3. OS X applications are easy to remove. Ubuntu applications ... well, if you can figure out which of the many files in /usr/bin, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib, and /etc belong to that app, you can probably remove it -- but have you ever looked inside those directories?

Originally Posted by Caetano

KDE 3.5 with Ubuntu (Kubuntu) feels and is much faster than even Panther - let alone WinXP. If you want archaic, 6 year old SP4 level OSs, install Win2000 but you won't be impressed.

Subjective. I've used many different operating system extensively, and any modern Linux distro consistently feels fatter and slower than either Windows 2000, XP, or OS X Panther/Tiger. As for "is much faster" ... got any numbers, or just anecdotal evidence?

Originally Posted by Caetano

And what if they want to install something? They need an admin account on Win2000/XP and it's not just a 'sudo' away either.

Nope. If you're not admin, you can still install most applications into a personal applications folder, be it in My Documents, your desktop, or whatever. And as a matter of fact, it *is* just a sudo away if you need admin -- right-click, Run as ... pick a user to run as, type the password.

Sounds like you need to do some research before spouting off on another pro-Linux couterpost.

[Caetano]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

OS X comes with one media player. Ubuntu comes with what, 3-4?

See? You're being silly. Talking without knowing the subject is not really recommended sir. Ubuntu comes with 1 media player: rhythmbox.

OS X comes with one browser. Again, Ubuntu comes with 2-3.

Again: you're being silly. Ubuntu comes with 1 browser: Firefox. Even the default GNOME browser (GNOME being the default DE) does not come with Ubuntu.

OS X applications are easy to remove. Ubuntu applications ... well, if you can figure out which of the many files in /usr/bin, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib, and /etc belong to that app, you can probably remove it -- but have you ever looked inside those directories?

Being silly again: Ubuntu includes a nifty graphical utility called Synaptic for removing any (any) app you installed. If you don't like a GUI and prefere to get "dirty", you can always fire up a terminal window and type "apt-get remove app-name" and you're all done.

Subjective. I've used many different operating system extensively, and any modern Linux distro consistently feels fatter and slower than either Windows 2000, XP, or OS X Panther/Tiger. As for "is much faster" ... got any numbers, or just anecdotal evidence?

And yours is not anecdotal evidence? You may have installed those Linux distro's, but you never told us the specs. You're comparing Ubuntu which came out in 2005 with Windows which came out in 1999 (Win2000). You don't think you should also use comparable hardware for Ubuntu now too, since it's, you know, 2005 and not 1999?

Nope. If you're not admin, you can still install most applications into a personal applications folder, be it in My Documents, your desktop, or whatever.

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. Ever try to install any app while in user mode? I thought so. I guess that's why Microsoft ships WinXP with an admin user by default.

And as a matter of fact, it *is* just a sudo away if you need admin -- right-click, Run as ... pick a user to run as, type the password.

You said 'make their accounts non-privileged.' Doesn't that kind of limit the user to being a regular user for all his/her computing time in that computer? The point of limiting the user to a non-privileged account is so that they *don't* have to use an admin password. What's the deal with allowing them to install apps they're not supposed to install?

Sounds like you need to do some research before spouting off on another pro-Linux couterpost.

No, you need to do some research. Obviously, you may have tried Linux some time back in 1999, when you got your first shiny copy of Win2000 (now SP4 included, yay!) and think that because Microsoft remained at the same spot (with a new shiny GUI slapped on Win2000 and a new name, of course) - you think all others have too.

Using the name Ubuntu is no excuse either, as you have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what Ubuntu even installs on a default installation, let alone if it feels faster or not. That, my friend, is called being an uninformed troll.

So long now,

[kick52]

actually, panther comes with 2 browsers.

but, you cant really call IE a browser...

[cgc]

Ubuntu runs much more slowly on my Mac then OS X (10.4.4) and I have 1 GB memory. It is still quite nice and easy to use. I installed it twice on an extra hard drive without ever losing any data.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

I tried Ubuntu Live CD on my almost-6-year-old PC and it feels pretty fast and responsive in all areas: music, graphics rendering, and media-rich web-browsing, etc. ................ ................ ........... did i mention it was running off of the CD drive and not the hard disk and still was performing "as good as" if not better than Windows XP?

(800mhz, 512mb ram, 48x CD-ROM, 3Mb/s DSL)

I'd pick it over WindowsXP any day... but i'm still a stubborn nOOb when it comes to linux to begin with, so i'll give it a while.


It's also too bad nobody makes a modern linux distro that'll work with a Sonnet G3-upgraded Power Mac 6100...

[alphasubzero949]

There's some serious trolling going on in here, so I'm going to jump back into this thread, now that the Dell in the OP has ended up as my "hobby" machine.

- Ubuntu comes on a SINGLE CD instead of a freaking DVD. Hell, you can even fit the image file onto a USB flash drive.

- With Tiger, if you remove all of the localizations, you can actually trim the install down by another 1 GB if you weren't to add all of the extras. And even add the XCode package (which can also be trimmed down).

- Ubuntu comes with ONE browser by default: Firefox 1.0.7. If you want to add more, either hit up Synaptic, Add/Remove Programs, the Terminal, or use a nice script called Automatix. You can even get Firefox 1.5 running on there if you like.

- Troubleshooting is simple and doesn't require much tinkering (though it can be frustrating to noobs at first).

- I don't consider it a noob's distro because it still is Linux and can still be a challenge to those who are not computer-inclined. So what that root is disabled by default. I don't consider running as root some sort of special L33T H4X0r status. I get by easily with sudo.

- GNOME is still more smooth on that kind of hardware than Tiger is on my Late '01 iBook (600 MHz G3) - both pieces of hardware from the same era. GNOME has grown on me despite the insistence of others to use KDE (I personally abhor it for looking too much like Windows).

- As much as I 'pimped' out Ubuntu with extra apps (mostly multimedia and productive), it still only eats up 4.5 GB on a 10 GB drive (that's roughly 40%). Considering the fact that it's on 2001-era hardware, that says a lot compared to Tiger on my iBook (15 GB drive) with Photoshop, MS Office, and the like.

- Ubuntu is FREE. They'll even ship you several CDs to hand out to friends at no cost.

- Hmmm, ever drilled through OS X's root level folders you can't see in the Finder (without resorting to a hack)? Would YOU know what belongs to whom?

[york28]

Ubuntu is an excellent distro. Kubuntu is just as good, but it comes with KDE if that's more to your liking. It is basically the best of Debian, but more user friendly.

Realted to some of the posts above: Running Linux on x86 and PPC is really a different experience. Most of the time, you can get things to work on PPC, but they are often not as optimized or require some workarounds. The situation has really improved in the last few years though.

[Super Mario]

How do I install Ubuntu on an external firewire disk? When I launch the CD from boot up it does not detect the external drive.

[hollowflame]

you should be able to install to an external drive, but it will NOT be easy. If the installer doesn't detect your firewire drive, then your drive may not be supported by Ubuntu... I have heard however, people sucesfully installing to an external USB drive. Worth a shot.